JUDGMENT

PUNCHHI, J.— This appeal by special leave is directed against the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi, in I.D. No, 40 of 1986 published in the Gazette of India, New Delhi dated October 21, 1989.

2. The appellant is the Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh (hereafter referred to as the Union). The contesting respondent is the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mathura Refinery Project, Mathura, U.P. (hereafter referred to as the Refinery). The Union represents about 900 causal labourers working in the Refinery. These labourers are contract labourers coming under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The nature of their work has grouped them. Some of the labourers have formed themselves into cooperative societies and those societies have entered into labour contracts with the Refinery. Other labourers are working under labour contractors who have contracts with the Refinery. Theirs is not a constant relationship with one contractor and these labourers keep shifting from one contractor to another. However it is claimed that these casual labourers have been working in the Refinery for so many years in the past ranging between ten to fifteen years but they are denied wages and other benefits as also other beneficial service conditions enjoyed by workmen who are regular employees of the Refinery. Claiming that they had a right to be treated at par with regular employees, the Union filed Writ Petition No. 2876 of 1985 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in this Court which was disposed of on January 16, 1986 by directing the Central Government to refer to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication the following questions:

"1. Whether, in law, the petitioners and the 48 workmen whose services have been terminated are employees of the Indian Oil Corporation, Mathura Refinery Project, Mathura?

2. Whether the termination of the services of 48 workmen was justified? and

3. To what relief are the workmen entitled?"

Status quo was ordered to be maintained and the services of the workmen were ordered not to be terminated. At that time, the services of 48 workmen alone were involved but as is evident the adjudication of the Tribunal would have affected others too.

3. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Central Government referred and the Industrial Tribunal decided the above referred to questions holding that the workmen were not employees of the Refinery and were rather the employees of the contractors. With regard to the termination of the services of the workmen and to what relief they were entitled, the Tribunal, after answering the questions against the Union and in favour of the Refinery, suggested the following steps in the interest of industrial harmony:

(i) Though the Union should have pressed their demand for abolition of the contract labour system in the Refinery to the Central Advisory Board constituted under the Act, and even though it had been pursuing its remedies before this Court and the Tribunal, suggestions were made to the Refinery to approach the Advisory Board to make a study with regard to the desirability of continuance of the contract labour system in the Refinery.

(ii) Till the Central Advisory Board makes its recommendations and the action is taken, the management of the Refinery to ensure that the contract labour is paid at least the minimum of the pay scale of its regular employees performing the same or similar duties as the workmen of the contract labour and further that the workmen among the contract labour who have put in 5 years or more of work at the Mathura Refinery shall be continued to be employed in the same work even if there is a change in the contractor and such workmen shall not be terminated except as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action for misconduct, etc., voluntary retirement or retirement on reaching the age of superannuation (which may be taken as the superannuation age for the IOC employees) or on ground of continuous ill health